Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Fateh Granite & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. -Jaipur-II

2016 (6) TMI 515 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Refund claim - Period of limitation - Claim for the period from 01/10/2007 to 31/12/2007 was filed on 04.03.2008 - Held that:- it is found that the time limit to file refund application was extended vide Notification No. 32/2008 dated 18.11.2008. The claim pertains to the quarter 1.10.2007 to 31.12.2007 and the time limit upto 18.11.2008 was only two month for filing refund claim. It got extended to 6 months vide Notification No. 32/2008 dated 18.11.2008 but by the time this notification was iss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion No. 32/2008-ST does not come to the rescue of the appellant, the claim is clearly time barred. Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Monsanto Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 505 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that “Once it is held that demand is time barred, there would be no occasion for the Tribunal to enquire into the merits of the issue….”. Accordingly, we refrain from discussion the merits of this case. - Decided against the appellant - ST/116/20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rejected on the following grounds: (1) THC Charges, bills of lading charges, origin haulage charges, repo charges were not covered under Port Services. (2) The appellant did not submit the proper invoices and submitted debit notes which are not prescribed documents. (3) Transportation of goods from factory to port is not covered under the scope of the Notification No. 41/2007-ST. (4) Claim for the period from 01/10/2007 to 31/12/2007 was filed on 04.03.2008, and therefore, was time barred. 2. Ld .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

port should also be covered. 4. Regarding time bar, it was contended that time limit to file refund claim was extended by the Notification No. 32/2008 dated 18.11.2008, from two months to six months and the claim was filed within six months of the expiry of the quarter to which it pertained. 5. Ld. DR supported the impugned order. 6. We have considered the contentions of both sides and perused the records. We find that the time limit to file refund application was extended vide Notification No. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version